We doubt that the Commission will make wholesale reassignments. It has never done so in the past. We believe the WHDH case clearly does not set a precedent for holders of full-term licenses.

However, we believe that the FCC should clarify its position in this regard, stating for the record that an incumbent who has satisfactorily performed during a full 3-year license period shall be entitled to preferential treatment.

Senator PASTORE. You would go that far?

Reverend FORE. Absolutely. We believe that if the FCC did this, the arguments being put forth in support of the Pastore bill would be unnecessary.

But the Commission has not spoken clearly on this matter.

Senator PASTORE. We had them here yesterday, and I am going to allow each of them to speak out on this bill. By the time we get through with this record, we will have about everyone who is interested speaking on it.

One of our main points is if they were to put down on the record that an incumbent who could satisfactorily perform for 3 years would be entitled to preferential treatment, it would make most of the arguments unnecessary in support of the bill.

This committee would appreciate a statement either by presentation or in writing by the Vice President if he feels any responsibility with reference to this bill. We are not going to ask him to do it, but if he feels that he would like to, I would like to know how he feels about it. And anyone else, including the President.

Reverend FORE. There are two other evils in the industry which should be corrected, and which this bill would seriously prejudice, if not prevent their correction. The first is media concentration in many markets.

There are many communities in the United States in which the communications media are under common control, and one person or one small group of persons is able to control the dissemination of information, opinion, talent, ideas, and culture to a large extent. Free and equal access to the media is a basic civil right of all Americans and one which is essential to the maintenance of a political democracy and representative government. The best way to break up local media concentration is through the possibility of a competing application. A second evil is the absence of community ownership, particularly minority-group ownership of broadcast stations. This is a problem inherent in the way our communication system has developed. When new channels are opened up, or when operation of new channels becomes economically feasible, the persons who are best able to seize the opportunity are those who already hold substantial interests in broadcasting or other media. These people have the credit, the management, and the equipment. They also have the resources and experience needed to fight for a channel in a comparative hearing. As a result, very few of the desirable broadcast channels in the United States are owned by local businessmen or people with roots in the service area.

To the best of our knowledge, there is no television station anywhere in the United States in which blacks have a substantial interest. Even the small number of UHF stations which program for a predominantly black audience are white owned. A number of the pending applications

for station licenses are by broadly representative groups of local citizens, including some blacks. We regard this as a desirable development. We also believe that increased participation in station ownership by local citizens of all kinds should be encouraged.

We acknowledge the recent efforts by the national networks and some local stations to provide programing in which blacks can participate. However, much of this programing is unreal and unrepresentative. News programs tend to present, not represent Negro views, but rather personalities and events which will hold the attention of the largest audience. Extremist groups and extremist views which have little support in the community have been nurtured by television's need for sensation, while real leaders are ignored. Stations partly owned by local citizens, including blacks, would tend to present more meaningful exchanges of information and opinion.

I have covered point 9.

We believe if this were done it might avoid the possibility of such overreaction as we suggest in this document tends to charactirize the proposed bill.

In addition, we believe that the FCC should develop a radical acceleration of its renewal process. This is essential, entirely apart from the passage of S. 2004.

10. In summary, we oppose passage of S. 2004 because we believe it would have the effect of permanently protecting the licenses of incumbent broadcasters and thus would defeat a basic purpose of the Communications Act, namely, to establish competition as the best way to achieve fairness, diversity, and excellence, without Government control. The possibility of an occasional forfeiture in the future on such grounds as poor performance or media concentration would do much to stimulate better performance by licensees, engender more local community ownership and less media concentration, and protect ethical broadcasters from unfair competition by the irresponsible.

Senator PASTORE. I want to thank you, Reverend, for what I consider to be a very good statement. You and I are 90 percent in agreement. We may disagree within a very small area, but I hope that you and I are both interested in the same objective.

Reverend FORE. I believe we are, sir.

Senator PASTORE. We appreciate very much your coming here. How the bill will come out I am not prepared to say at the moment, but you can rest assured that we will hear everyone who has anything to say with reference to the bill.

What I am trying to do is to make sure that the public interest is protected, to see that we don't do anything to interrupt or interfere with the process of protest by the people.

You raised the question about the blacks having been excluded. I quite agree with you. That has been the development of our country, sorrowfully so, and possibly something should be done, but there is a way of doing that-by rulemaking.

I think in a community, for instance, where, let us say a station under white ownership, where there has been a tremendous amount of investment, would you say that if that person had a record of good performance, his license ought to be taken away summarily in order to give it to another group of people? That would not be the American way either. You have got to give a person an opportunity to spin it off;

otherwise, you are confiscating property. On renewal date you cannot say you have done a very good job, the community is satisfied with the operation of this station, but we feel maybe a black group should own the station.

That may be a desirable thing to do, but on the other hand, what does this poor fellow do with his investment? That has to be taken care of. The process may lead to some frustration and some impatience. but I quite agree with you that these serious problems have to be given serious thought. But I would not want to do it by intimidation. That is the thing that disturbs me. Government by intimidation is bad gov

ernment.

Reverend FORE. We do not propose that responsible white ownership be required to divest themselves of their licenses. The ultimate objective here is to meet the needs of the local community.

Senator PASTORE. That is right.

Reverend FORE. And if there is a substantial number of black people in that community and if a wholly white owned station actually meets the needs of that community, including the blacks, of course, that is the ultimate criterion. But the actual history of it is that without some black ownership and deep involvement, this has not been the case.

Senator PASTORE. I quite agree with that, and I think that problem has to be resolved.

Revend FORE. Thank you very much, sir.

Senator PASTORE. Thank you, sir.

Our next witness is Mr. Dale Moore.

It is 5 minutes to 12, and we have three other witnesses. It isn't that I want to shut anyone off or deprive them of making their full statement if they want to make it. I leave that choice up to each witness. It's a matter of making the record complete. It appears that other members of the committee have other engagements and other commitments but they will read the record. So, if we put the statements in the record, it would serve that purpose. Then I would hope that each witness would emphasize his salient points rather than being repetitive. You have been sitting here and listening to it, so I would hope you would summarize and we will put your statement in the record. Is that satisfactory to you?

STATEMENT OF DALE G. MOORE, SMALL MARKET BROADCASTER

Mr. MOORE. Yes, it is.

Senator PASTORE. Are you for or against the bill?

Mr. MOORE. I am testifying for passage of S. 2004, and my name is Dale G. Moore. I own radio and television stations in small markets. When I say small markets, in towns varying in size from some 8,000 people to the largest city which is 36,000.

I have about 20 years in the broadcast business. All but a few of them in small markets. The balance in a major market. I returned to the small market by choice in Montana and have developed some radio and TV properties in Montana, Idaho, and one television station in California in a small market.

Montana, as you know, is the fourth largest State, with 700,000 people. Forty AM stations, four commercial FM, 10 television, daily and weekly newspapers, cable TV importing anywhere from 3 to 10 out

side of the State signals, fractionalization of the audience, penetration of the community by a variety of service and media to some 700,000 advertisers, there are approximately 37 radio stations in New York City with how many million, and yet our transmitter equipment and all of these things cost the same as the large market.

There are nine radio stations in Montana, Mr. Chairman, located in towns under 3,000 population. Three more are located under 5,000 population, eight more in communities under 10,000. A total of 28 of Montana's radio stations are located in communities less than 22,000 population. S. 2004 must be passed if we are going to have our continuance in business I believe.

Due process has already removed a television station from Santa Marita, Calif. Due process, if S. 2004 is not passed will most assuredly in the future remove some valuable service to the rural areas of Montana.

I operate a television station in Kalispell, Mont., a community under 10,000 people. There is no larger urban area surrounding it. Kalispell already had one television station go dark, and for 12 years was without local service before we came in with our station. I can tell you this, there hasn't been a profitable television station to this point in Kalispell.

I am convinced that those who would today make broadcasting a whipping boy for the world's ills have been encouraged to do so by the broadcaster's own failures to speak up and tell his story of what has happened. I can tell you the depth of frustration that comes to every small market broadcaster who tries to live under the rules and regulations, the pounds of rules and regulations already on the books, and they do fall with equal impact on the large, medium, and small. We are a personal service in a small market. I am on the airport board, past president of the chamber of commerce, I serve in every capacity in that community and so does my news director, my managers, and the rest. They are personally involved in their community.

S. 2004 will not grant me a license in perpetuity. I have a fine of $2,000 hanging over my head now at a property that the FCC found a rule that they could put on me. There are rules and regulations that can take my license in between the 3 years. I was not aware that I had a guarantee for 3 years even. I was given a license, but in the meantime if an engineer in the field of the FCC came in and found enough violations, I could be set for a potential license revocation. When my listeners disagree on something and write the FCC, I find the mail coming back the other way from the FCC and asking me why, what happened here, and I am sure that I have violated the public interest, convenience, and necessity, it will be in my file, and acted upon now or at the latest at my renewal time.

Before the ink is dry on the note that is at the bank to loan me the money to install Kalispell, I am going to have to apply for a license renewal.

Now, can there be anywhere I can receive financing if I am up for grabs at anytime or at the 3-year interval? Now, how can I continue to pay out $100,000 in the last 15 months for legal fees to protect the due process at a small market television station that if the people were asked they would say they like what they are getting?

It may not conform in every way to the rules and regulations A, B, C, et cetera, but then it conforms with what the people are getting and the service they enjoy and need.

This privilege of somebody coming in that's proposed, and the WHDH decision made it a fact, I think it is unfair to the established broadcaster whose record of performance is at stake, whose track record as a broadcaster is available from his open file, they could read me like a book; however, whoever wants to come in against me, but what can I read about them in preparation of my file and whose investment of capital? Whose investment of time and effort are in jeopardy? Proponents of this inequitable argument, people who do not want S. 2004 would permit the guillotine to fall with equal impact not only in Detroit and Los Angeles, but also in Baker, Mont., population 2,375, and when you leave the city limits, even the jack rabbits carry canteens. Such an indefensible position that I am to come at renewal time and stand facing one, two, three, five, how many applicants who have perhaps no track record that might have a few shallow points.

The small town grocer who takes years to build a business, if he commits a fraudulent act, if he is sentenced to jail, can still sell his business at a profit. Not so if S. 2004 is not passed, inevitably it is going to happen, and it might be one of mine. Your bill does not remove the broadcasters necessity for filing for licenses renewal nor does it remove the requirement of the FCC to examine the license renewal application and to determine there from whether or not the licensee should be granted a license. S. 2004 expressly provides that

If the Commission determines after a hearing that a grant of the application of a renewal applicant would not be in the public interest, convenience and necessity, it shall deny such application, and applications for construction permits by other parties may be accepted,

S. 2004 does nothing to remove the continuing right of the Commission to judge the broadcast stations on performance versus promises. It does not remove the Commission's right to review the licensee's performance of operating in the public interest, convenience, and necessity. It just simply is not so that S. 2004 will give me or anyone else my license in perpetuity.

I have got to compete with all those other radio and TV stations, newspapers, et cetera. That's one thing. You are elected, sir, every 6 years, but you are elected everyday or not by your constituents judging you on your actions. And so me, every minute of everyday. They tune me in or they tune me out. They write me; they are in my station. It is a personal experience in small market radio, in a small market television. I need no seven Commissioners to define from Washington, D.C., what my public intrest, convience, and necessity obligations are.

They are being defined for me daily, hourly, by the mayor, by my janitor who is known to practically everybody in the city of Missoula. That's personal television and radio.

I do not, sir, accept that we are a vast wasteland. That our programing is going down field. The wonders of Apollo 11, the wonders of many other programs refute this. Consider, if you will, that every rule and regulation adopted by the FCC, every guideline or doctrine established, falls with equal impact on the small market stations of Montana as on the major market stations in the cities of America.